Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Some people claim that their god is the author of my conscience.
The claim, of course, is absurd. These people worship a god who supposedly flooded the world and commanded genocide so that his "chosen people" could take over land from those already living there. My conscience tells me that those are evil acts. There might exist some god that is the author of my conscience. But it is certainly not that one.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Untitled
"Know what? I have seen NOTHING to convince me that [christians] are nothing but lying, gutless cowards without morals that live in Fantasyland and think they are better than everyone else. How many have had the nerve to read part 2 of this? About ten."
The person above actually said "atheists." But it applies so well to so many christians. But here's a good question. Why would this guy think he knows how many people part 2 of his nonsense? People can read what he wrote from the main blog. The only reason to click into the post specificly is to try to leave a comment. Second, why should anyone be expected to come back for a second helping of libellous accusations? There really is no point. To call someone a coward for not visiting a sice that lies about him and provides no opportunity for response is dishonest in the extreme.
So, yeah, to the troll. I call you a coward for blocking all comments to your site (barring your own, of course.) This post will mimic your style. No comments will be allowed. And if you do not comment on this post, I will take that as you agreeing with everything I have said.
The person above actually said "atheists." But it applies so well to so many christians. But here's a good question. Why would this guy think he knows how many people part 2 of his nonsense? People can read what he wrote from the main blog. The only reason to click into the post specificly is to try to leave a comment. Second, why should anyone be expected to come back for a second helping of libellous accusations? There really is no point. To call someone a coward for not visiting a sice that lies about him and provides no opportunity for response is dishonest in the extreme.
So, yeah, to the troll. I call you a coward for blocking all comments to your site (barring your own, of course.) This post will mimic your style. No comments will be allowed. And if you do not comment on this post, I will take that as you agreeing with everything I have said.
Friday, June 18, 2010
This is a comment I found on another blog
Here is a comment I found on another blog. The names have been effectively removed.
<X>, Baby, for the last time, I'll explain. And I'll type slow because I know you and the rest of this herd can't read fast.
I get accused of making up the comments by the [deleted.] So, I show you how to find his site. He's real, he railed against me (better than you clowns did, I'll give him that). Easily proven, but you're so consumed with hate, you're stupidified.
There's that "reason" again, you lot cannot grasp it.
So here's the challenge. Can you tell to what belief the above commenter subscribes? Is he hindu? Muslim? Christian? Jewish? Atheist? Wiccan? A believer in the old Roman gods, perhaps? I should probably give my readers (crickets chirping) some background. No one had claimed that the other person didn't exist. In fact, a link was provided to the site by one of the critics of the commenter above. No reference to that commenter can be found on the site. Now, this person has been accused of fabricating comments because, well, he has been caught fabricating comments. But no one has asserted that the people he pretends write the invented comments don't exist. That's a red herring he's throwing. They point out, quite correctly, that he invents comments and falsely attributes them to people who exist but never wrote those comments.
Yes, you there in the back. You could come up front. There's plenty of room. Hardly anyone seems to be here. You say I haven't given you enough information? That all those styles of belief produce such inane people among their members? Well, that's actually my point. No belief system is a guard against such stupidity. And yet I find so many people who claim to be smart by virtue of adhering to the "correct" belief. No, if you're smart, you will realize that your belief might be incorrect.
<X>, Baby, for the last time, I'll explain. And I'll type slow because I know you and the rest of this herd can't read fast.
I get accused of making up the comments by the [deleted.] So, I show you how to find his site. He's real, he railed against me (better than you clowns did, I'll give him that). Easily proven, but you're so consumed with hate, you're stupidified.
There's that "reason" again, you lot cannot grasp it.
So here's the challenge. Can you tell to what belief the above commenter subscribes? Is he hindu? Muslim? Christian? Jewish? Atheist? Wiccan? A believer in the old Roman gods, perhaps? I should probably give my readers (crickets chirping) some background. No one had claimed that the other person didn't exist. In fact, a link was provided to the site by one of the critics of the commenter above. No reference to that commenter can be found on the site. Now, this person has been accused of fabricating comments because, well, he has been caught fabricating comments. But no one has asserted that the people he pretends write the invented comments don't exist. That's a red herring he's throwing. They point out, quite correctly, that he invents comments and falsely attributes them to people who exist but never wrote those comments.
Yes, you there in the back. You could come up front. There's plenty of room. Hardly anyone seems to be here. You say I haven't given you enough information? That all those styles of belief produce such inane people among their members? Well, that's actually my point. No belief system is a guard against such stupidity. And yet I find so many people who claim to be smart by virtue of adhering to the "correct" belief. No, if you're smart, you will realize that your belief might be incorrect.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
About comment spam...
It seems that some people are posting comment spam. I have been finding long sets of random character glyphs or periods that link to (if the link address is any indication; I have not actually followed those links) "adult" websites. Now, if you want to argue against something I have said in my blog and wish to include a link to a source that supports your case, feel free. But if the text of your comment is a mere filler so that you can treat my blog as your personal ad space, then I will delete the comments.
Consider this a heads up. This blog is written in English, not Chinese, Japanese or whatever those characters were supposed to be. If I find unreadable material that is serving as a hyperlink, I will probably regard it as spam. If I find hyperlinks in which the text does not make it clear what the link is supposed to go to, I will regard it as spam.
Try to be reasonable. I'd hate to have to turn on moderation -- although so few people read my blog, I doubt anyone would notice. I also can't help but wonder if Stormbringer isn't behind this. The appearance of the spam seems to coincide with my criticizing him for making excuses to block all comments. Well, I will never need to block all comments. But I prefer to keep comments "real time." It would help discussions -- if there were any.
Consider this a heads up. This blog is written in English, not Chinese, Japanese or whatever those characters were supposed to be. If I find unreadable material that is serving as a hyperlink, I will probably regard it as spam. If I find hyperlinks in which the text does not make it clear what the link is supposed to go to, I will regard it as spam.
Try to be reasonable. I'd hate to have to turn on moderation -- although so few people read my blog, I doubt anyone would notice. I also can't help but wonder if Stormbringer isn't behind this. The appearance of the spam seems to coincide with my criticizing him for making excuses to block all comments. Well, I will never need to block all comments. But I prefer to keep comments "real time." It would help discussions -- if there were any.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
On Dan's blog, Stormbringer gave a link to an mp3 file of an episode of the CARM broadcast he seems to like. I have stated before that call-in programs tend to act problematicly for dissenters. And this seems to hold true for that one as well. I listened to a small portion of the spot where people are calling in and found that it is arranged so that the callers are all but inaudible (the host can be heard clearly) and the host will speak over the callers.
At any rate, in the section to which I listened, the caller was stating that the alleged resurrection of Jesus is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to be believed. I found the host to be rather slick-talking; but, perhaps that is my own bias. The caller gave as an example of possible extraordinary evidence, the stars being rearranged to spell out the claim. Now me, when I think of this as extraordinary evidence, I am thinking of the stars arranged in patterns like the lights of electronic highway signs. When those lights are used to spell out a message, there is no mistaking the message indicated. If the stars were so arranged, it would establish the existence of a being powerful enough to do that and interested enough to convey such a message. The host twisted it in saying that maybe it's there in some connect-the-dots fashion. That would be something subject to confirmation bias and would be decidedly ambiguous.
Ah, but the host was not done. His clear agenda was to take the ordinary evidence of the human-written bible and get it accepted as though it were the extraordinary evidence requested. Jesus making a post-mortem appearance would indeed be extraordinary evidence, for anyone who saw it. Unfortunately, the claim of such appearances is, itself, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to be accepted. We don't actually have his appearance as evidence. We have an anonymously written text that claims an appearance before several people, none of whom could be questioned by the time the text was written. That level of evidence is so weak that I would want independent corroboration even for otherwise plausible claims. Yet christians want me to accept it as conclusive for claims that look outlandish on their face. Sorry, but it is more likely that the text was written as a lie than that the events depicted really happened.
At any rate, in the section to which I listened, the caller was stating that the alleged resurrection of Jesus is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to be believed. I found the host to be rather slick-talking; but, perhaps that is my own bias. The caller gave as an example of possible extraordinary evidence, the stars being rearranged to spell out the claim. Now me, when I think of this as extraordinary evidence, I am thinking of the stars arranged in patterns like the lights of electronic highway signs. When those lights are used to spell out a message, there is no mistaking the message indicated. If the stars were so arranged, it would establish the existence of a being powerful enough to do that and interested enough to convey such a message. The host twisted it in saying that maybe it's there in some connect-the-dots fashion. That would be something subject to confirmation bias and would be decidedly ambiguous.
Ah, but the host was not done. His clear agenda was to take the ordinary evidence of the human-written bible and get it accepted as though it were the extraordinary evidence requested. Jesus making a post-mortem appearance would indeed be extraordinary evidence, for anyone who saw it. Unfortunately, the claim of such appearances is, itself, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to be accepted. We don't actually have his appearance as evidence. We have an anonymously written text that claims an appearance before several people, none of whom could be questioned by the time the text was written. That level of evidence is so weak that I would want independent corroboration even for otherwise plausible claims. Yet christians want me to accept it as conclusive for claims that look outlandish on their face. Sorry, but it is more likely that the text was written as a lie than that the events depicted really happened.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
"It's a free gif. All you have to do is..."
It seems a lot of christians say that "salvation" is a "free" gift, but then say you have to worship Jesus. If I have to do anything to receive a "gift," it is not free. Since I seem to hear the line "Jesus paid your fine" a lot, I will use that for an analogy. Suppose you face a kangaroo court and are fined $1,000,000,000 for a trumped-up claim. But the judge's brother-in-law offers to pay your fine for you (he actually is a billionaire.) Now, if he pays the fine, it is only 2¢ out of his pocket, and you have to worship him forever. Now, to me, this whole scenario seems rather unfair.
The situation with Jesus is pretty much the same. The accusation looks fake, the fine as supposedly "paid" it is far less than what would supposedly be applied to me. And it's calling me into worship. Thanks, but no thanks. I think this is a scam.
The situation with Jesus is pretty much the same. The accusation looks fake, the fine as supposedly "paid" it is far less than what would supposedly be applied to me. And it's calling me into worship. Thanks, but no thanks. I think this is a scam.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
My thoughts on Stormbringer's recent blog post
First off, you can find his post here.
I find it rather interesting that he is telling people to put on their "all-growed-up pants" when he is cowering behind "no comments allowed." Probably every blogger has had to deal with abusive comments. I have had trolls on my blog, too. But I don't need to block all comments. I will remove inappropriate comments after the fact. (And no, disagreeing with me does not render a comment inappropriate. Blue language does.)
He is making rather sweeping generalizations about atheists. He did admit to exceptions. However, I do not find any reason to believe that his generalizations are representative of atheists. There exist some people of any belief that will fit his stated generalization.
"Hey, why not call the CARM radio show and debate Matt live on the air?"
Here's a good reason. Someone attempting that is not likely to get heard. Call-in program serve target audiences. And it is, unfortunately, profitable (in the pecuniary sense) to belittle, shout over, disconnect the sound, and otherwise maltreat dissenters.
"By the way, why do you troll Christians most of all?"
I would estimate that it is because christians are the ones who have managed to get their beliefs (to greater and lesser extents) enshrined in the statutes. Christians are seen as a threat because non-christians do not want (for example) legally-enforced, mandatory worship on Sunday's. Anti-gay legislation is apparently supported only by people quoting bible verses.
"Also, if you were truly intelligent, you would consider evidence and arguments that Christians present, or visit Websites of apologetics, instead of squirming and dodging."
Well, I have visited the web sites of apologists. And I have seen a remarkable shortage of evidence. They generally use bible quotes in lieu of evidence. I don't already believe the bible. It's not going to convince me. I have also been banned outright by apologist bloggers who said that people might think my replies were convincing and that they didn't want to deal with them. (I have no reason to believe that this is unique to christians. It is not uncommon for people to want to cripple opposing perspectives.)
Update: I see he has a new profile picture. Personally, I think colorizing an image of the original Doctor Who is just wrong. (I doubt Stormbringer colorized the image himself.) I also don't think the image suits him. He seems (to me) more in keeping with the residents of Skaro.
I find it rather interesting that he is telling people to put on their "all-growed-up pants" when he is cowering behind "no comments allowed." Probably every blogger has had to deal with abusive comments. I have had trolls on my blog, too. But I don't need to block all comments. I will remove inappropriate comments after the fact. (And no, disagreeing with me does not render a comment inappropriate. Blue language does.)
He is making rather sweeping generalizations about atheists. He did admit to exceptions. However, I do not find any reason to believe that his generalizations are representative of atheists. There exist some people of any belief that will fit his stated generalization.
"Hey, why not call the CARM radio show and debate Matt live on the air?"
Here's a good reason. Someone attempting that is not likely to get heard. Call-in program serve target audiences. And it is, unfortunately, profitable (in the pecuniary sense) to belittle, shout over, disconnect the sound, and otherwise maltreat dissenters.
"By the way, why do you troll Christians most of all?"
I would estimate that it is because christians are the ones who have managed to get their beliefs (to greater and lesser extents) enshrined in the statutes. Christians are seen as a threat because non-christians do not want (for example) legally-enforced, mandatory worship on Sunday's. Anti-gay legislation is apparently supported only by people quoting bible verses.
"Also, if you were truly intelligent, you would consider evidence and arguments that Christians present, or visit Websites of apologetics, instead of squirming and dodging."
Well, I have visited the web sites of apologists. And I have seen a remarkable shortage of evidence. They generally use bible quotes in lieu of evidence. I don't already believe the bible. It's not going to convince me. I have also been banned outright by apologist bloggers who said that people might think my replies were convincing and that they didn't want to deal with them. (I have no reason to believe that this is unique to christians. It is not uncommon for people to want to cripple opposing perspectives.)
Update: I see he has a new profile picture. Personally, I think colorizing an image of the original Doctor Who is just wrong. (I doubt Stormbringer colorized the image himself.) I also don't think the image suits him. He seems (to me) more in keeping with the residents of Skaro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
